With Complaints Rapidly Increasing across the U.S., Now is the time to act

As of May 26, 2020, 2,278 complaints have been filed nationwide over the global pandemic COVID-19 according to the COVID-19 Complaint Tracker developed by lawyers at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. While the largest amount of these complaints deal with prison conditions and civil rights , the next highest areas of litigation involve insurance disputes, consumer disputes, labor and employment issues  and contract disputes. Claims regarding employment, contracts and force majeure provisions, or clauses contained in contracts which excuse performance due to natural destructive acts also known as “acts of God,” are on the rise. These complaints will continue to be filed as the effects of COVID-19 continue to be felt in ever-changing ways. Many of these complaints have been filed in jurisdictions where Kang Haggerty regularly practices—namely COVID-19 hot spots New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Although the COVID-19 Complaint tracker does not capture all of the COVID-19 related cases filed, it does provide insight into how this disruptive and deadly virus has negatively impacted business and individuals across the United States. Further, these metrics only represent disputes that have escalated to the point of initiating litigation, a costly and potentially prolonged endeavor. Many disputes are not captured in the above data either because a wronged party has not retained representation to advocate for their grievance, talks between opposing parties are ongoing, or settlements have been reached. Determining your best course of action can be critical.

Filing a complaint is one of the many tools skilled litigators have in their arsenal to obtain favorable outcomes for their clients. But before filing a complaint one needs to be clear on what terms govern your agreement, the responsibilities of all parties involved, how actions taken by either party may result in a breach to the agreement, and what protections from disruption are afforded to you under the terms of your agreement, your municipality, state or, or under federal statute. By consulting a lawyer to analyze your situation promptly, you may be able to avoid costly litigation related to any disruptions in service you experience or provide as a result of COVID-19. Kang Haggerty LLC has, for instance, successfully utilized force majeure clauses to excuse nonperformance under contracts, which enabled clients facing millions of dollars in liabilities to walk away from disrupted contracts with no penalty fees assessed or for significantly less than they were facing in settlements. As the metrics make clear, COVID-19 is fertile ground for disputes among individuals and businesses that continue to grow each day as our nation attempts to achieve a new normal.

Please consult our Kang Haggerty COVID-19 Resources: Preparing for Post COVID-19 Litigation page for additional information on specific practice areas and issues to consider, along with helpful tips and advice on preparing for reopening in a COVID-19 world, reducing liability and the likelihood of being sued successfully.

Tianna K. Kalogerakis is an associate at Kang Haggerty LLC, where she concentrates her practice on commercial litigation and business disputes. Tianna is the immediate past president of Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia.

Despite the plaintiff-friendly pleading standards for securities fraud outlined by the Supreme Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010), out-of-state investors need to be particularly vigilant in pursuing fraud-related common law claims in New York, being careful not to become blocked by the borrowing statute.

New York City is home to the world’s largest stock exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and is host to financial service providers. This concentration of wealth and financial expertise has enticed many out-of-state investors to place their money in securities with New York-based financial institutions in the prospect of riches; however, coupled with the influx of these out-of-state investments is the potential for legal action by each dissatisfied or defrauded investor.  New York developed the “borrowing statute” to protect its residents and deter actions by nonresidents including out-of-state investors in securities and commodities. Despite the plaintiff-friendly pleading standards for securities fraud outlined by the Supreme Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010), out-of-state investors need to be particularly vigilant in pursuing fraud-related common law claims in New York, being careful not to become blocked by the borrowing statute.

In February of 2013, SUNY’s board of trustees voted to close the hospital and were seeking sell the property to (likely one of four) developers who are competing in a bid process.  Various groups from the community blocked the closure with a web of legal actions brought by a coalition of local community groups, unions and elected officials, who were calling for a totally new, transparent Request for Proposals (bidding) process that “respond to the health care needs of the community.”  Meanwhile, SUNY claimed that the losses—estimated at as much as $13MM per month—that resulted from the hospital’s continued operation threaten the structure of the state’s entire public college system.

Last week, the parties reached a settlement—which is viewed by some as a fair compromise and viewed by others as the exact offer on the table a year ago—that entails SUNY placing heavier weight on developers’ bids that include keeping the hospital in full time service, but allowing SUNY to cease operational control over the hospital in May.  In a nod to compromise, a plaintiff’s attorney, Jim Walden, commended SUNY for working towards a fair settlement.  Along with representation for some plaintiffs, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Chairman of the SUNY trustees, H. Carl McCall, also exalted the deal as giving the community a better chance at achieving its goals while allowing the university system to relieve economic strain.